Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Skeptical of Gay DNA

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,” (Romans 1:21-24)

Amid the complaints about the cost of defending our nation against it enemies, it’s amazing that our Federal Government can find money to spend on a study of so-called gay DNA..

“The federally funded study, led by Chicago-area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. Parents and straight brothers also are being recruited.”

So much for the idea that science is apolitical. The proponents of the study admit that it “won't provide a final answer”, yet the very nature of the study suggests an agenda. Head Researcher Dr. Alan Sanders says:

"We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove. We are trying to pry some of nature's secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait."

Of course Sanders isn’t trying to prove a predetermined point. He merely wants to assert it by suggesting that homosexuality is a “fundamental human trait.”

This underlying “predetermined point” is quite clear throughout the statements of the proponents of the study.

“If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color (Julio Cabrera)

"If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination." (Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.)

So while Dr. Sanders admits that “It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation”, it is quite clear that there is a predetermined point.

Proponents of the gay DNA theory point to studies involving gay twins as strong evidence.

“One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance.”

Both studies clearly refute the “gay DNA” theory. If DNA were the primary culprit behind homosexuality, and if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, we should expect that the other would be gay 100 percent of the time.

My friend, if you are a proponent of such immorality, I would be remiss if I didn’t give you the following warning that Paul gave to the Corinthians:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

For those who try to defend their sins through vain excuses like “my DNA made me do it” or “my brain made me do it”, and yet think that they will escape God’s wrath, the warning is “Do not be deceived”. However, there is good news, as God provides grace and mercy for even the chief of sinners.

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11)



  1. But hang on...I have not seen any studies that conclusively prove any links between behavior and one's genetic make-up. Even Dawkins admits as much and had to come with the meme concept to account for inherited behavioral traits.

    But let's suppose that they do find some genetic correlation, how they account for the survival of that genetic trait? It allows the species no selective advantages, and according to evolutionary theory, should have been removed from the gene pool by natural selection a long time ago.

  2. "But let's suppose that they do find some genetic correlation, how they account for the survival of that genetic trait?"

    Right on John. And this is especially true of a homosexual genetic trait.